What was the worst plane that was ever made?

[MiloMorai]

The B-29 and B-32 were classed VERY heavy bombers. The Lanc only as a heavy bomber.

[Angus]

Well sort of...but if the Machester hadn't been redesigned as the Lancaster, we'd probably never have had the Lancaster. So, I think it was just a very expensive prototype(s), with the wrong engines, etc etc...

The Brits realized the complication of a "double" engine early enough, they had the aircraft in production, and the wing design allowed 4 engines. Presto, the Lannie was born!
It would fly on 2 engines (if on different wings) while the Manchester would not fly on one, and despite a little more drag, the total thrust was more. sooooo....pretty early in the war, the RAF had a tool that could carry 10 tonnes over a long long distance.
A sad story is the one of the Stirling. Would have done the same if the wings hadn't been shortened. (hangar issue) And that was earlier in the war...

[Serenity]

I think what this thread is proving is that there is no such thing as a bad plane. Even the lousiest waste of money of all time led to some important developement, and went on to influence an aircraft we now consider to be great. "There's no such thing as a stupid question..."

[Angus]

Bad plane + waste of money would be the SB2C

[Jester]

Bad plane + waste of money would be the SB2C

Depends on the model - by the late war most of the bugs & bad engineering had been worked out and the crews swore by the plane. Reputation hung with the plane though kinda like the B-26.

 

[Koz]

Probably the Me-163.

[VansCrew1]

The B-29 was fatally flawed in that it had consistently overheating engines and also engine parts made of magnesium.  The overheating/fire problem wasn't fixed until the B-50 came out.

It may have been flawed, but it was the only reason America did not have to invade the homeland of Japan. With out the B29 carrying the A-bomb the United States would of lost hundreds of thousands of men if not a million men invading Japan.

[Angus]

Flawed? Yes. Effective? Yes. Succesful? Yes. Almost untouchable, and it did haul a lot, unlike many of the less successful designs....

[AquaShrimp]

There were alternatives to the B-29.  The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946).  Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.

[Serenity]

There were alternatives to the B-29.  The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946).  Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.

Sooo... you think an aircraft which didn't even FLY until 1946 was a contender to prevent an invasion scheduled for 1945? 

[Pannono]

EDIT: just took up the C.202 in the DA. That things freaking awesome. I beat Pannono twice him in a K4, first time 2v1 (me being 1) second time him chasing me on the deck for revenge. I killed his radiator, oil, and fuel but he was able to extend (in a K4... not catching that)

ya just had to didnt ya? lol jk its all good
 

[Ack-Ack]

There were alternatives to the B-29.  The B-32 and even the B-36 (which first flew in 1946).  Also the XB-30 and XB-31 were contenders.

The B-32 was intended as a fallback in case of any design or production difficulties with the B-29.  In addition, the B-32 was riddled with flaws, like the pressurization system problems that were never solved and eliminated from production models.  In addition, only 118 were built out of a 1000+ order for the B-32. 

Viable alternative?  I don't think so and from everything I've read the USAAC thought the same.  By the time the first production B-31 was ready, the B-29 had already been in active service in China.  As I mentioned, the B-32 was designed as a 'fallback' if the B-29 suffered from design and production delays but it was the B-32 that suffered production delays due to faulty designs.  The USAAC then initially planned on using the B-32 to supplement the B-29 by replacing the B-17s and B-24s of the 8th and 15th AFs before redeployment to the PTO.  However, this didn't work out so well when only a handful of B-32s were delivered by the end of '44, which by this time full B-29 operation in the CBI/PTO were fully underway.

B-36 a contender?  It wasn't deployed during WW2, its development cycle lasted from 1941 to 1946 with the first prototype flying in 1946.  The only reason the USAAF didn't cancell the project is that at the time it was the only bomber capable of carrying a thermonuclear device to the Soviet Union.  It also suffered through engine problems its entire production life.

B-31 never made it out of the design stage because Boeing had a huge head start with the B-29 program and it was felt that the B-29 could do everything the B-31 could do and more.

B-30?  Same reasons as the B-31.

Was the B-29 perfect?  No, but it was the right plane for the right job at the time.


ack-ack

[Banshee7]

AKAK, i'm firing Lusche and hiring you as my new AH lawyer

[Lusche]

AKAK, i'm firing Lusche and hiring you as my new AH lawyer

You never paid me anyway...

[Banshee7]

You never paid me anyway...

You never told me where to send it